A lawsuit against an
animal rights group by a biopharmaceutical company whose employees were
harassed in connection with the group’s activities clearly survives a motion to
strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, the First District Court of Appeal ruled
yesterday.

Div. Two affirmed an
order by Alameda Superior Court Judge Steven Brick, who denied Stop Huntingdon
Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.’s motion to strike claims that Novartis Vaccines and
Diagnostics, Inc. brought on behalf of its employees.

The justices also upheld
a preliminary injunction that Brick issued against Stop Huntingdon while its
appeal on the motion to strike was pending.

Novartis, based in
Emeryville and formerly known as Chiron Corporation, sued Stop Huntingdon in
February 2004 on behalf of several employees whom Stop Huntingdon allegedly
targeted as part of its campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences—a
British-based research firm whose biochemical testing includes experiments on
mice, rats, rabbits monkeys, dogs and cats.

Stop Huntingdon is the
U.S. arm of a British group that catalyzes efforts aimed at shutting down
Huntingdon. It has been the subject of both criminal and civil actions and has
been described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization.

It had targeted Novartis
in 2003 for using the services of Huntingdon as part of its work of developing
vaccines and blood testing products for diseases like cancer and AIDS.

It posted on its Web
site the names, home phone numbers, home addresses, and bank account
information of Chiron employees, as well as the names of the employees’ spouses
and children.

Additionally, Stop
Huntingdon’s Web site encouraged activists to make harassing “home
visits”—which Haerle described as “a euphemism for a terrifying and often
destructive night time invasion[s]”—to the employees’ residences. The site
contained instructions about how to conduct such visits, a calendar directing
activists to gather on a specific date to conduct them.

‘Home Visits’

Protesters paid several
late-night “visits” to the homes of three high-level Chiron employees in May
2003, which included shouting anti-Chiron slogans through bullhorns, setting
off shrieking alarms in their yards, and smearing feces on their doorsteps.
Activists also harassed the targeted employees by calling them and posting
their home phone numbers on the Internet in connection with false
advertisements, for example a fictitious estate sale.

Stop Huntingdon posted
statements on its Web site after at least two of the incidents, threatening
future activity if Chiron did not stop doing business with Huntingdon.

After protesters several
months later bombed Chiron’s facilities, Stop Huntingdon’s president made a
public statement that his group shared the bombers’ passion and Chiron and its
staff should be “very worried.” Stop Huntingdon’s site also posted links to the
group that took responsibility for the bombing.

The justices held that
the acts committed during the home visits were clearly unlawful, and there was
ample evidence that Stop Huntingdon conspired with the demonstrators to commit
those acts, even though the group’s Web site maintained that it “does not
encourage or incite illegal activity.”

Justice Paul Haerle,
writing for the court, said:

“It is simply not the
case, as SHACUSA argues, that its
statements in furtherance of this conspiracy are protected under the anti-SLAPP
statute.”

Moreover, he wrote,
there was “more than sufficient evidence” in the record to support Brick’s
conclusion that Novartis showed a probability of prevailing on its harassment,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, intrusion,
and trespass claims.

The court also rejected
Stop Huntingdon’s jurisdictional challenge to the preliminary injunction issued
by Brick in September 2004, after vociferous demonstrators vandalized the home
of Chiron’s general counsel.